I just don't understand why grown men can't fight for a teammate...As an Isles fan I see the same problem with them...It drives me nuts when you see someone take a questionable at best shot at Tavares or Okposo and everyone looks at eachother like tarts.

I've played hockey a long time and those guys are my family out there...I'm not a big guy but I didn't even think twice about dropping the gloves and taking a few punches to get a point across...at the very least a man sized swing with your stick to the back of someone's leg normally gets there attention.

I don't understand when there's another example of them not standing up for each other since the Drury incident. IMO they've actually done it too much to the point where we're not focusing on winning the actual game.

I don't understand when there's another example of them not standing up for each other since the Drury incident. IMO they've actually done it too much to the point where we're not focusing on winning the actual game.

and he was still horrible. Orr's peak is a fringe AHL player if he doesn't fight, regardless of how well he "develops"

Hey Ranger fan did you ever play the game? The worst NHL player and i guess you feel that is orr is 45 thousand times a better athlete then you. Why you choose to crap on a guy that gave his heart to help the Rangers pisses me off

Hey Ranger fan did you ever play the game? The worst NHL player and i guess you feel that is orr is 45 thousand times a better athlete then you. Why you choose to crap on a guy that gave his heart to help the Rangers pisses me off

so you cant say a player was a bad NHL hockey player unless you, yourself, are a better NHL player?

i'd certianlly go out there and "give my heart" for the team but it wouldn't make me a good player

i respect a guy with a good heart but that doesnt mean you cant call him out for not being good enough to compete in the NHL

case in point: Vally, by all accounts, is a stand up guy...but a terrible goalie and has no place in the NHL

we can absolutely call players out for not having what it takes to play in the big league, no matter how huge your mancrush is on orr

My definition of a tough team isn't a team that ices all goons. Its a team that is the following:

-- A tough team is the type of team that when the puck goes back in the defensive zone the opposite d knows they have to move the puck quickly because the forecheck is coming. This creates turnovers, pucks jumping over sticks and bad passes.

-- A tough team is the type of team that the opponet goalie knows that he has no room for error. He must stop every puck cleanly cause on every rebound in the crease he's going to have a forward or two jamming at the puck. This creates those put back goals from the "tough areas" of the ice.

-- A tough team is the type of team that from the opening minute of the game to the dying seconds is crashing the net and creating opportunities where none really exist.

-- A tough team is the type of team against which the opponent realizes that if he puts himself in a danger he's going to get hit, and hit hard. Therefore, pucks just slightly outta reach are let go because putting yourself in danger = getting your head knocked off.

-- A tough team is the type of team that most times wins the battles for the pucks along the boards. They come out with the intent to punish the opposing team and usually succeed.

There are other attributes that define a tough team. But thats a really good beginning. Earlier in this thread someone said the Detriot isn't a tough team. I totally disagree. According to the above they sure are. They always have a group of forwards who are tough around the net (going back it was Primaue, Shanny, McCarthy, and others now its Franzen, Cleary and such). They always have that nasty d-man that makes life tough (for years its was Chelios, now its Brad Stuart and N. Kronwall). Since the bruise brothers this team has defined team toughness like few franchises can. Philly on the other hand has spent 40 years now playing smashmouth hockey. They always find the Michael Handzus', Brad Richards' up front and the nasty d-men on the blueline. To their credit the pIsles are slowly building a tough team. Even when the sucked they made you pay a physical price to play against them.

The Rangers, on the other hand, since the mid 90's have been pretty easy to play against. No one hits, no one crashes the net, no one makes the other team battle to win the puck against the boards. THis is a team wide problem and except for a couple of players this trend continues. This team needs to add two or three tough, hard hitting forwards not afraid to crash the net as well as atleast one d-man that makes the other team take notice. Until that happens we don't win!

My definition of a tough team isn't a team that ices all goons. Its a team that is the following:

-- A tough team is the type of team that when the puck goes back in the defensive zone the opposite d knows they have to move the puck quickly because the forecheck is coming. This creates turnovers, pucks jumping over sticks and bad passes.

-- A tough team is the type of team that the opponet goalie knows that he has no room for error. He must stop every puck cleanly cause on every rebound in the crease he's going to have a forward or two jamming at the puck. This creates those put back goals from the "tough areas" of the ice.

-- A tough team is the type of team that from the opening minute of the game to the dying seconds is crashing the net and creating opportunities where none really exist.

-- A tough team is the type of team against which the opponent realizes that if he puts himself in a danger he's going to get hit, and hit hard. Therefore, pucks just slightly outta reach are let go because putting yourself in danger = getting your head knocked off.

-- A tough team is the type of team that most times wins the battles for the pucks along the boards. They come out with the intent to punish the opposing team and usually succeed.

There are other attributes that define a tough team. But thats a really good beginning. Earlier in this thread someone said the Detriot isn't a tough team. I totally disagree. According to the above they sure are. They always have a group of forwards who are tough around the net (going back it was Primaue, Shanny, McCarthy, and others now its Franzen, Cleary and such). They always have that nasty d-man that makes life tough (for years its was Chelios, now its Brad Stuart and N. Kronwall). Since the bruise brothers this team has defined team toughness like few franchises can. Philly on the other hand has spent 40 years now playing smashmouth hockey. They always find the Michael Handzus', Brad Richards' up front and the nasty d-men on the blueline. To their credit the pIsles are slowly building a tough team. Even when the sucked they made you pay a physical price to play against them.

The Rangers, on the other hand, since the mid 90's have been pretty easy to play against. No one hits, no one crashes the net, no one makes the other team battle to win the puck against the boards. THis is a team wide problem and except for a couple of players this trend continues. This team needs to add two or three tough, hard hitting forwards not afraid to crash the net as well as atleast one d-man that makes the other team take notice. Until that happens we don't win!

My definition of a tough team isn't a team that ices all goons. Its a team that is the following:

-- A tough team is the type of team that when the puck goes back in the defensive zone the opposite d knows they have to move the puck quickly because the forecheck is coming. This creates turnovers, pucks jumping over sticks and bad passes.

-- A tough team is the type of team that the opponet goalie knows that he has no room for error. He must stop every puck cleanly cause on every rebound in the crease he's going to have a forward or two jamming at the puck. This creates those put back goals from the "tough areas" of the ice.

-- A tough team is the type of team that from the opening minute of the game to the dying seconds is crashing the net and creating opportunities where none really exist.

-- A tough team is the type of team against which the opponent realizes that if he puts himself in a danger he's going to get hit, and hit hard. Therefore, pucks just slightly outta reach are let go because putting yourself in danger = getting your head knocked off.

-- A tough team is the type of team that most times wins the battles for the pucks along the boards. They come out with the intent to punish the opposing team and usually succeed.

There are other attributes that define a tough team. But thats a really good beginning. Earlier in this thread someone said the Detriot isn't a tough team. I totally disagree. According to the above they sure are. They always have a group of forwards who are tough around the net (going back it was Primaue, Shanny, McCarthy, and others now its Franzen, Cleary and such). They always have that nasty d-man that makes life tough (for years its was Chelios, now its Brad Stuart and N. Kronwall). Since the bruise brothers this team has defined team toughness like few franchises can. Philly on the other hand has spent 40 years now playing smashmouth hockey. They always find the Michael Handzus', Brad Richards' up front and the nasty d-men on the blueline. To their credit the pIsles are slowly building a tough team. Even when the sucked they made you pay a physical price to play against them.

The Rangers, on the other hand, since the mid 90's have been pretty easy to play against. No one hits, no one crashes the net, no one makes the other team battle to win the puck against the boards. THis is a team wide problem and except for a couple of players this trend continues. This team needs to add two or three tough, hard hitting forwards not afraid to crash the net as well as atleast one d-man that makes the other team take notice. Until that happens we don't win!

i think you described exactly the type of play Torts has been preaching since day one...am i wrong?

i think you described exactly the type of play Torts has been preaching since day one...am i wrong?

Not sure what he preaches to the players. I do know that he doesn't have the horses to play this style. Forward wise we don't have the size and tenacity up front. On d we don't have the snarl.

This type of play needs to come naturally. You can't force a timid player to become a tiger on the ice. HOWEVER, in my experience I've found that team toughness can become contagious. I believe it stems from the pack mentality. When you see two or three guys on your team running around with big balls bashing everyone in site, suddendly even the most timid guy starts to grow a pair. However, you certainly need a few leaders to inject that mentaility into the team. We don't have that.

Not as simple as that. You've got to have the right players to play that system. Plain and simple we don't! Although we all complained like crazy Renney's system certainly was a better fit given the skillset of the players we have.

I don't think Lisin, Kotalik, and Drury fit that style on the forwards. Also Prospal and Gabby arent like that either not that it really matters what they do when they score like they do.

our best player for his style is injured w/ a broken hand.

That leaves Cally, Higgy, Ani and Avery out of the forwards playing right now that would fit a Torts style out of the top 3 lines. That really isn't enough to fully implement what he wants.

Now if the other three want to join in playing that style (like they did in the beginning of the year) than maybe we will be successful again. But I really think that those three need to be gone from this team, and Dubi needs to come back.

Now on defense, Rosy has been better but is still sub par (and I support him), our two rookies are just that rookies and are still very prone to mistakes but have for the most part surprised us in a good way.

redden has been ok... not great, but ok.

Staal needs to focus on defense, and hit like he did last year and the year before.

Girardi needs to grow a sack and hit somebody, and at least try to clear the crease instead of just watching helplessly.

out of the defense rosy and girardi both need to be gone.

So at this years TD I would look to move Rosy, Girardi, Lisin, Kotalik.
I would also try to move Higgins b/c I just don't see us resigning him and maybe we could pick up a 3rd rounder for him.

Tortorella has never been a good X's and O's coach. It's one thing to tell a team with Lecavalier, St Louis, Richards, and Boyle on it to go out and "be aggressive and control the puck." It's quite another to tell a team full of grinders to do it.

Orr wasn't the most talenten player, not the best skater and wasn't even the best fighter but he was a damn good teammate.

Guy played hard every game...didn't take foolish penalties.

For people who are against fighting will never understand his value.

The Rangers have no team toughness and if you think Cally fighting Cooke is an example of team toughness then you do not know hockey at all.

All successful hockey teams have the right combination of both.

With the exception of Kreider and Werek all of the current prospect play the same way...soft.

The problem is Sather has no identity. When the Ducks won the Cup with rugged guys he wanted rugged guys...when the Wings won with finesse he wanted finesse. The Penguins combined both and Sather had no idea what to do....he tried for Neil, didn't land him and gave up on acquiring grit.

Orr wasn't the most talenten player, not the best skater and wasn't even the best fighter but he was a damn good teammate.

Guy played hard every game...didn't take foolish penalties.

Say what? Clearly you and the rest of the Rangers fanbase were not watching the same games.

Quote:

For people who are against fighting will never understand his value.

This is just a cop out because you don't have any sort of real argument. You want any guy that can go out and pound someone elses face. I want someone who can pound faces and actually contribute something else on the ice.

Quote:

The Rangers have no team toughness and if you think Cally fighting Cooke is an example of team toughness then you do not know hockey at all.

Staged fighting by enforcers isn't "toughness" either.

Quote:

With the exception of Kreider and Werek all of the current prospect play the same way...soft.

That's just flat out wrong.

Quote:

The problem is Sather has no identity. When the Ducks won the Cup with rugged guys he wanted rugged guys...when the Wings won with finesse he wanted finesse. The Penguins combined both and Sather had no idea what to do....he tried for Neil, didn't land him and gave up on acquiring grit.

Dubi's absence leaves a huge physical presence missing. He adds such a force on the fore check and he will stand up for his guys against anybody. I think he is 2-3 years away from being a Cam Neely style player. Too bad beside Dubi there is only Cally.

I really wish we had gotten Colby Armstrong a couple of years ago.

On a different topic: can you imagine a power play with MDZ and Mark Streit. Why did we get Reden and let the Isles get Streit?

Hey Ranger fan did you ever play the game? The worst NHL player and i guess you feel that is orr is 45 thousand times a better athlete then you. Why you choose to crap on a guy that gave his heart to help the Rangers pisses me off

I appreciate it that he gave his heart to the Rangers, but that doesn't change the cold hard fact that he is not a good hockey player when it comes to NHL standards at all. He doesn't do anything other than fight that even comes close to warranting a spot on an NHL Roster, and if he wasn't a good fighter, he'd be somewhere in the ECHL at or in a league like AAHL.

And yes, I have played the game before, and I still do. Orr is by far a better athlete for me, but I'm not in the NHL!

Orr wasn't the most talenten player, not the best skater and wasn't even the best fighter but he was a damn good teammate.

Guy played hard every game...didn't take foolish penalties.

For people who are against fighting will never understand his value.

The Rangers have no team toughness and if you think Cally fighting Cooke is an example of team toughness then you do not know hockey at all.

All successful hockey teams have the right combination of both.

With the exception of Kreider and Werek all of the current prospect play the same way...soft.

The problem is Sather has no identity. When the Ducks won the Cup with rugged guys he wanted rugged guys...when the Wings won with finesse he wanted finesse. The Penguins combined both and Sather had no idea what to do....he tried for Neil, didn't land him and gave up on acquiring grit.

I don't equate Callahan fighting Cooke as an example of team toughness, because team toughness isn't about retaliation or this crock that we don't stand up for our teammates, but I don't understand why people think Callahan having to fight Cookie is such a big deal. Cally is in his weight class, Brashear isn't. Brash went after him right away and Cooke just ducked him. I don't really see the issue.

Excellent examples of team toughness. You want to make your opponent think twice about his actions prior to doing it.

I don't know how many people have played hockey before, but the game is extremely fast, and I really think intimidation goes so far in preventing anything from happening.

Do you guys remember the flyer teams that had Lindros, Recchi, etc.? Those teams were loaded with guys that you didn't want to mess with. Did that ever stop anyone from throwing their weight around against the flyers? Hardly, and if you don't believe me you can ask Eric Lindros, that is if he can actually remember despite all the concussions.

Especially in the new NHL with the new rules, no one cares if you've got a heavyweight enforcer or team toughness. People are still going to throw their weight around against you. They're not going to think twice because of who you have on your roster, they're protected pretty well by the rules.